Floyds Fork Area Study Project Overview, Suitability Analysis, & Form Districts July 29, 2008
Agenda Floyds Fork Area Study Project overview and purpose Process and schedule Ongoing initiatives Floyds Fork Area suitability and location for mixed-use centers Existing form districts Implementation Discussion
Project Overview and Purpose Floyds Fork Area Study Balance land conservation and projected population growth Create compact, mixed-use centers to limit sprawl Preserve existing natural resources Integrate mixed-use centers with Floyds Fork Greenway and City of Parks 100-mile loop Implement design and development guidelines Promote best development and conservation practices
Process and Schedule Floyds Fork Area Study Where will/should growth occur? What should it look like? Floyds Fork Area Study Existing Condition Analysis Suitability for Conservation & Development Location of Centers Concepts & Best Practices Sketch Plans Design Guidelines Implementation Strategies
Ongoing Initiatives City of Parks Floyds Fork Greenway Studies by KYTC Louisville Retail Market Study Conservation Subdivision Ordinance Karst Protection Ordinance Floyds Fork Watershed Plan MSD Floyds Fork Action Plan Update Historic Properties Survey
Ongoing Initiatives Floyds Fork Greenway Greenway project extends from Shelbyville Rd to Bardstown Rd and includes over 2,500 acres of publicly-accessible, protected land owned by Louisville Metro Parks, 21st Century Parks and Future Fund, Inc.
Study Area Floyds Fork Area Study
Building Permits (2003-2007) Legend Multi-Family Residential Building Single-Family Residential Building Commercial Building
Why are Centers needed? Eliminate new stretches of linear commercial development that promote traffic congestion, air pollution, and inefficient use of infrastructure Provide compact areas to be served by multiple modes of transportation such as mass transit
To discourage this
And encourage this
Suitability Analysis Existing Conditions and Trends Suitability Process Where should new centers be located? Population growth Slope and floodplain Proximity to existing and future parkland Transportation Access to residential development Access to employment centers Inventory Assessment
Existing Conditions and Trends TAZ Boundaries (Transportation Analysis Zones) Source: Louisville and Jefferson County MSD
Existing Conditions and Trends Population Density Projections 2030 0-2 DU/Acre 2-8 DU/Acre 8 or more DU/Acre
Existing Conditions and Trends Slope and Floodplain Steep Slopes No Slope Floodway 100-Year Floodplain
Existing Conditions and Trends Slope and Floodplain 20% or Greater 5-20% 0-5%
Existing Conditions and Trends Existing and Future Parkland Public (21 st Century and Metro Parks) Future Fund Other
Existing Conditions and Trends Proximity to Existing and Future Parkland 0-1/4 Mile ¼-½Mile ½ - 2 Miles or Greater
Existing Conditions and Trends Transportation Improvements Potential Interchange Improvements Proposed Road Improvements
Existing Conditions and Trends Residential Development Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Proposed Single-Family
Existing Conditions and Trends Access to Residential Development 8 Miles or Greater 2-8 Miles 0-2 Miles
Existing Conditions and Trends Employment Centers Suburban Workplace Form Districts
Existing Conditions and Trends Access to Employment Centers 20 Miles or Greater 8-20 Miles 0-8 Miles
Suitability Analysis Existing Conditions and Trends Suitability Process Where should new centers be located? Population growth Slope and floodplain Proximity to existing and future parkland Transportation Access to residential development Access to employment centers Inventory Assessment
Metro Center Suitability and Location Process Inventory Assessment Assessment Metro Center Suitability - 2030 Metro Center Location
Metro Center Suitability and Location High Suitability Medium Suitability Low Suitability Population growth (density) 2030 Slope and floodplain Proximity to existing and future parkland Access to residential development via roadway network Access to employment centers via roadway network Excludes developed areas, parkland, and floodplain
Metro Center Suitability and Location High Suitability Medium Suitability Low Suitability Fisherville Billtown Road at I-265 Bardstown Road at I-265 Cooper Chapel Road at Bardstown Road
Metro Center Suitability and Location Public (21 st Century and Metro Parks) Future Fund Other Fisherville Billtown Road at I-265 Bardstown Road at I-265 Cooper Chapel Road at Bardstown Road
Existing Regulations Zoning Commercial Commercial Manufacturing Industrial Office/Residential Planned Research/Office Rural Residential Residential Single Family (R-4) Residential Multi-Family
Existing Regulations Typical 4-5 Units/Acre Street Patterns Residential Single-Family R-4 Permitted Uses include: Agricultural Single-Family Dwellings Libraries, Schools, & Other Institutions Min Lot Size: 9,000 SF Max Dwellings per Acre: 4.84 Source: Visualizing Density, 2007 by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Julie Campoli, and Alex S. MacLean
Existing Regulations Form Districts Campus Neighborhood Regional Center Suburban Marketplace Corridor Suburban Workplace Town Center Village / Village Center Downtown Traditional Marketplace Corridor Traditional Neighborhood Traditional Workplace
Existing Regulations Form Districts Campus Neighborhood Regional Center Suburban Marketplace Corridor Suburban Workplace Town Center Village / Village Center Downtown Traditional Marketplace Corridor Traditional Neighborhood Traditional Workplace
Existing Regulations Form Districts Campus Neighborhood Regional Center Suburban Marketplace Corridor Suburban Workplace Town Center Village / Village Center Downtown Traditional Marketplace Corridor Traditional Neighborhood Traditional Workplace
Existing Form Districts Neighborhood Form District Calls for a mix of retail, institutional, and other neighborhood-serving nonresidential uses in activity centers Little or no guidance for activity center size and location Contextual setback requirements for infill development Design standards otherwise limited compared to Village and Town Center form districts
Existing Form Districts Neighborhood Form District
Existing Form Districts Neighborhood Form District
Existing Form Districts Neighborhood Form District
Existing Form Districts Village / Village Center Form District Development in the center of a village offering goods and services at a scale that is appropriate for nearby residential area Surrounding residential area covered by Village Form District Outlying Typical of small communities developed prior to 1940 (e.g., Anchorage, Eastwood) Contextual setback and height requirements for infill development Design standards more extensive than Neighborhood form district but could be more comprehensive in scope
Existing Form Districts Village / Village Center Form District Fairdale Village Center (top), Middletown Village Center (bottom) Palmer Square Princeton, NJ
Existing Form Districts Village / Village Center Form District Fairdale Village Center (top), Middletown Village Center (bottom) Merchant s Square Williamsburg, VA
Existing Form Districts Village / Village Center Form District Fairdale Village Center (top), Middletown Village Center (bottom) Merchant s Square Williamsburg, VA
Existing Form Districts Town Center Form District Compact center with a mix of moderately intense commercial, civic, office, and residential uses focused on an identifiable core Floor space between 100,000 sf and 400,000 sf to serve market area of 25,000 to 75,000 Build-to line/maximum front yard setback and contextual height requirements Contextual setback and height requirements for infill development Design standards more extensive than Neighborhood form district but could be more comprehensive in scope
Existing Form Districts Town Center Form District St. Matthews Town Center (top), Ferncreek Town Center (bottom) Market Common at Clarendon Arlington, VA
Existing Form Districts Town Center Form District St. Matthews Town Center (top), Ferncreek Town Center (bottom) Shirlington Village Arlington, VA
Action Tools Conservation Subdivision Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Conservation Easements Purchase of Development Rights Design Standards Plumsock at Willistown Conservation Subdivision Chester County, PA Source: Natural Lands Trust
Action Tools Conservation Subdivision Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Conservation Easements Purchase of Development Rights Design Standards
Action Tools Conservation Subdivision Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Conservation Easements Purchase of Development Rights Design Standards
Action Tools Conservation Subdivision Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Conservation Easements Purchase of Development Rights Design Standards
Project Overview, Suitability Analysis, & Form Districts July 29, 2008 Discussion & Questions